what is the reason for allowing this
template test(char[] bla)
{
....
}
but not
template test(int[] bla)
{
....
}
or other bultin(own) types?
ciao dennis

I think it's because arguments to a template become part of its mangled
name. Integers and floats are easy, as are actual strings, but to
support arbitrary types, Walter would either need some kind of generic
serialisation setup, or find a new way of mangling templates.
At least, that's how I understand it :)
-- Daniel
--
int getRandomNumber()
{
return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
// guaranteed to be random.
}
http://xkcd.com/
v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP http://hackerkey.com/

what is the reason for allowing this
template test(char[] bla)
{
....
}
but not
template test(int[] bla)
{
....
}
or other bultin(own) types?
ciao dennis

I think it's because arguments to a template become part of its mangled
name.

Integers and floats are easy, as are actual strings, but to
support arbitrary types, Walter would either need some kind of generic
serialisation setup, or find a new way of mangling templates.

That's not much of an issue. In fact, if you look at the ABI page,
you'll see that the mangling scheme almost supports arbitrary types already.
TemplateArg:
T Type
V Type Value
S LName
Any type which can be a type template parameter, and which has literals,
could also be a value parameter.
The problem is that the mangled names become too long, which makes bad
things happen (eg, the obj file format imposes a maximum identifier
length of ~ 3kB).
There a few types (int[], short[] ubyte[]) which are essentially
identical to the permitted dchar[], wchar[], char[], and could trivially
be permitted.
CTFE has drastically reduced the number of cases where it would be
useful, though.